- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7437 OF 2026 BETWEEN: NAGARAJU. H.M. S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. GARDEN HOUSE, HERURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK- 572 216 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. RYAKHA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GUBBI POLICE SATATION, TUMKURU DISTRICT.- 577101. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT. BHAVYA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT HERURU KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK-572216 NATIVE OF SASIVEHALLI, MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN - 573 213 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.98/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S (108), 308(2), 308(4), 308(5) OF BNS ACT 2023 AND REGISTERED BY THE GUBBI POLICE STATION AT TUMKURU WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMKURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the court Calling in question proceedings in S.C. No.98/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 308(2), 308(4), 308(5) of the BNS, pending on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Tumakuru. 2. Heard Sri. Mallikarjun B. Ryakha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served with notice remains unrepresented. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.1 are heard in the matter. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is the accused, the 2nd respondent is the complainant. The husband of the complainant and the petitioner have had certain transactions. Therefore, the petitioner is said to have frequently contacted the husband of the complainant, the deceased to repay the money that had been lent to him. This led the husband of the complainant to commit suicide. The complainant goes before the jurisdictional police and registers a complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.336/2024 for the offence under Section 108 of the BNS. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences in S.C. No.98/2025. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had lent certain amount to the husband of the complainant and he had not returned it. Therefore, the petitioner had to call the deceased multiple times and ask for the amount. The asking of the amount has led the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 deceased/husband of the complainant to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in complaint and the charge sheet would not become the ingredients of the offence for abetment to suicide. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that despite the return of the money the security cheques that were kept with the petitioner were not handed over as there was a dispute with regard to the financial transaction between the two. Therefore, the husband of the complainant getting frustrated has committed suicide. The learned High Court Government Pleader would further submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. < 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The issue is with regard to the ingredients of the abetment to suicide being met or otherwise. The petitioner is the sole - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 accused. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant's husband dies by committing suicide. The axe of such abetment has now fallen upon the petitioner pursuant to a complaint so registered by the second respondent on 06.09.2024. The complaint reads as follows: “ೕ ಸ ಇ ೆಕ ರವರು, ಗು ೕ ಾೆ ರವರ ಸಾನೆ ಭವ ೆ. . ೋಂ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ಎ. ಎ . 29 ವಷ( ಂ)ಾಯ+ರು ಮ-ೆ ೆಲಸ /ೇರೂರು )ಾ0ಮ ಕಸ1ಾ /ೋಬ2 ಗು 3ಾ4ೊ5ೕ6 . ಸ7ಂತ ಊರು ಸ:ಾ;ಹ2=, >ಾ?ಹ2= /ಾಸನ @4ೆ5. ೕ ನಂ 8618471476 ಆದ -ಾನು CೈE /ೋಬ2, 1ೇಲೂರು 3ಾ4ೊ5ೕ6 ಮF;ೊಟ ದೂರು, ಏ-ೆಂದ$ೆ, ನನ ತವರು ಮ-ೆ /ಾಸನ @4ೆ5 1ೇಲೂರು 3ಾ4ೊ5ೕ6 ಕಂೇನಹ2= )ಾ0ಮ:ಾIದುJ, ನನ ತಂKೆಯ /ೆಸರು ಬಸವ$ಾಜು, ನನ 3ಾL ವನMಾNOಾIದುJ, ನಮP ತಂKೆ 3ಾL)ೆ ಇಬರು ಮಕ2ದುJ, ನನನು ಈ)ೆR ಸು>ಾರು 8 ವಷ(ಗಳ TಂKೆ ಸ:ಾ;ಹ2= )ಾ0ಮದ ನಂMೇ)ೌಡರ ಮಗ-ಾದ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ಎ ಎ ರವW)ೆ ೊಟು ಮದು:ೆ>ಾFದುJ, ನನ)ೆ ಭುವ ಎಂಬ 5 ವಷ(ದ ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ಇರುತ+Kೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ XೖಸೂWನ 1ೇಕWಯ5 ೆಲಸ >ಾFೊಂFದJರು. ನಂತರ ಈ)ೆR 5 ವಷ(ಗಳ TಂKೆ -ಾನು ಮತು+ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಇಬರೂ ಗು 3ಾ4ೊ5ೕ6 ಕಸ1ಾ /ೋಬ2 /ೇರೂರು )ಾ0ಮದ5 ಒಂದು 1ಾF)ೆ ಮ-ೆ >ಾFೊಂಡು, /ೇರೂರು Zಾರಂ ಬ2 ಇರುವ ;.ಐ.\. ಕ4ೇಜು ಮುಂ]ಾಗ ಒಂದು ಅಂಗFಯನು 1ಾF)ೆಯನು ಪ`ೆದು ಆ ಅಂಗFಯ5 ಗು ೇ /ೌ ಎಂ3ಾ 1ೇಕW >ಾFೊಂಡು ವ ವ/ಾರ >ಾಡುb+ರು3ೆ+ೕ:ೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ 1ೇಕW)ೆ cಾ>ಾನು ತರಲು ಮತು+ 1ೇಕW ನ`ೆಸಲು ಹಣದ 3ೊಂದ$ೆOಾKಾಗ, /ೇರೂರು Zಾರಂ :ಾ; -ಾಗ$ಾಜು @ ಬFe-ಾಗ ಮೂಡಲIWಯಪf ರವರ ಬ2 ಯಜ>ಾನ$ಾದ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ರವರು ಈ)ೆR 01 ವಷ(ದ TಂKೆ 1ೇಕW ನಮP 1ೇಕW ಮುಂKಾಗ ವ ವ/ಾರ >ಾಡುb+ದJರು. ನನ ನಂ?ನ ಾಲ( ಅಂಗF ಇಟುೊಂFರುವ Kೇ:ಾನಂg ರವರ ಹಣದ ವ ವ/ಾರದ5 -ಾಗ$ಾಜು ರವರ ಬ2 ಹಣದ cಾಲೆ ಶiW\)ೆ ನಮP ಯಜ>ಾನರ jೆ6 ಗಳನು - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 ೕFದJರು. ಅಂಗF :ಾ ಾರ ಸ7ಲf ಕkPOಾIದುJ, Kೇ:ಾನಂದನ ಶiW\)ೆ ೕFರುವ ಹಣದ cಾಲವನು ನನ)ೆ -ಾಗ$ಾಜು ರವರು -ಾನು ಎ5 ;lದ$ೆ ಅ5 3ೊಂದ$ೆಯನು ೕF bೕWಸಲು ಆಗುb+ಲ5. >ಾFರುವ cಾಲವನು ೊಡKೇ ಇದJ$ೆ, ಎ5Oಾದರೂ /ೋI cಾL ಎಂ3ಾ /ೇಳm3ಾ+-ೆಂ3ಾ ೕನು ನ ನ ಬ2 ಆ)ಾಗ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ ಬ2 /ೇಳmb+ದJರು. -ಾನು ನನ ಗಂಡ)ೆ ಸ>ಾಾನ >ಾFKೆJನು. ?-ಾಂಕ-5/9/2024 1ೆ2)ೆR 7-00 ಗಂCೆ)ೆ ಎಂ?ನಂ3ೆ, ಅಂಗF)ೆ /ೋಗು3ೆ+ೕ-ೆಂ3ಾ /ೇ2 /ೋIದJರು. $ಾb0 10-00 ಗಂCೆOಾದರೂ ಮ-ೆ)ೆ 1ಾರದ ಾರಣ -ಾನು ನಮP ಅಂಗF ಹb+ರ /ೋI -ೋಡ4ಾI, ನಮP ಯಜ>ಾನರ 1ೈ6 ಮತು+ ಚಪf ಅಂಗFಯ ಮುಂ]ಾಗದ5 ಇದುJ, ಅಂಗFಯ ಮುಂ1ಾಗದ ಮತು+ Tಂ]ಾಗದ ಎರಡೂ `ೋ ಗಳm ಒಳ]ಾಗ?ಂದ `ೋ 4ಾ6 /ಾIದJವo. ನಂತರ -ಾನು ನಮP ಯಜ>ಾನರ p1ೈq ನಂಬ 9380998607 /ಾಗೂ 7026899402 )ೆ ೕ >ಾFKಾಗ, ೕ ಅಂಗFಯ ಒಳ]ಾಗದ5 Wಂr ಆಗುb+ದುJ, W;ೕs ಆನುb+ರqಲ. ನನ)ೆ ಅನು>ಾನ ಬಂದು ನಮP ಅಂಗFಯ Tಂ]ಾಗದ5ರುವ ಅಂಗFಯ '>ಾೕಕ$ಾದ ಸಂಗXೕt ಗಂಗಣu ಮತು+ ಸಂ3ೋv ಬಸವ$ಾಜು, jೇತ $ಾಜಣu, ಚಂದ $ಾಜಣu ರವರು ಬಂದು Tಂ]ಾಗ ಇರುವ :ೆಂ\4ೇಷ ನ5 ಒಳ]ಾ -ೊಡ4ಾI, ನನ ಗಂಡ ಅಂಗFಯ Xೕ4ಾಗದ ಕಂ)ೆ :ೇq ಂದ -ೇಣು @ೕWೊಂFರುವoದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂತು. ಕೂಡ4ೇ -ಾವoಗwೆಲ5ರೂ Tಂ1ಾಗದ `ೋ ಅನು k\ 3ೆ)ೆದು ಒಳ]ಾಗೆ /ೋI -ೋಡ4ಾI, ?ನಂಕ-6/9/2024 ರಂದು 1ೆಳIನ Mಾವ 1- 30ಗಂCೆOಾIದುJ,ಸತ :ಾIದುJ, ನನ ಗಂಡನ @ೕವ ಇರಬಹುKೆಂದು b2ದು. -ೇxಂದ ೆಳI2;Kೆವo ನಂತರ ನನ ಗಂಡನ p1ೈq -ೋಡ4ಾI ನನ ಗಂಡ -ೇಣು Iದುೊಳm=ವ ಮುನ ಅಂದ$ೆ, ?-ಾಂಕ-5/2/2024 ರಂದು $ಾb0 10-30 ಗಂCೆ ಸಮಯದ5 ನನ ಗಂಡ ಅವರ p1ೈq ನ5 yೕFzೕ $ೆಾ{( >ಾF ನನ)ೆ /ೇರೂರು :ಾ; -ಾಗ$ಾಜು ಮೂಡ5IWಯಪf @ ಬFe -ಾಗ ಈ ?ನ ?-ಾಂಕ-5/9/2024 ರಂದು 1ೆ2)ೆR 7-54 ಗಂCೆLಂದ ಪKೇ ಪKೇ ೕ >ಾF, Cಾಚ( >ಾF, ೕನು ನನ)ೆ ಹಣ ೊಡKೇ ಇದJ$ೆ ನನ ಬ2 ಇರುವ jೆ6 ಗಳನು :ಾಪ ೊಡುವo?ಲ5. ೕನು ಎ5Oಾದರೂ /ೋI cಾL ಎಂ3ಾ ನನ)ೆ ೕ ನ5 Cಾಚ( ೕಡುb+ದುJ, ಇದWಂದ ನನ)ೆ 1ೇಜ$ಾI, ಮತು+ ನಂ? ಾಲ( ಅಂಗF ಇಟು ೊಂFದJ )ೋಾಲಪoರ :ಾ; Kೇ:ಾನಂದ ರವರ cಾಲದ ಶiW\)ೆ -ಾನು jೆ6 ೕFರು3ೆ+ೕ-ೆ, ಈ cಾಲದ ಹಣವನು ೕ-ೇ bWಸು ಎಂ3ಾ -ಾಗ$ಾಜು - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 ರವರ Cಾಚ( 3ಾಳ4ಾ$ೆKೆ -ೇಣು /ಾlೊಂಡು ಸb+ರು3ಾ+$ೆ. ಈ ಬ)ೆR yೕFzೕ $ೆಾಡ( >ಾFರು3ಾ+$ೆ. ಮೃತನ ಶವವನು ಆಸf3ೆ0ಯ ಶ:ಾ)ಾರೆ cಾI;, ಅ:ೇwೆOಾದJWಂದ ಈ yjಾರವನು ನಮP ಸಂಬಂ}ಕW)ೆ b2;.. ಈ ?ನ ತಡ:ಾI ಾೆ)ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು ೕFರು3ೆ+ೕ-ೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ರವರು -ಾಗ$ಾಜು @ ಬFe-ಾಗ ಮೂಡ5IWಯಪf ರವರು cಾಲವನು bೕWಸKೇ ಇದJ$ೆ, ೕನು ಎ5Oಾದರೂ cಾL ಇಲ5?ದJ$ೆ, ನನ ಹಣವನು bೕWಸು ಎಂದು ೕಡುb+ದJ, Tಂcೆಯನು 3ಾಳ4ಾರKೆ, @ೕವನದ5 @ಗುೆf/ೊಂ? -ೇಣು @ೕWೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪ\ರು3ಾ+-ೆ. ಆದJWಂದ -ಾಗ$ಾಜು ರವರ Xೕ4ೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ0ಮ ಜರುIಸ1ೇೆಂದು ೇ2ೊಳm=3ೆ+ೕ-ೆ. ತಮP yೇಯಳm” The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: “17. ೇ;ನ ಸಂNಪ+ cಾ$ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 108,308(2),308(4),308(5) .ಏ .ಎ ಈ Kೋಷ$ೋಪಣ ಪತ0 ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರ5, ಕಂಡ ಆ$ೋ•ಯು ಈ ೇ;ನ ಮೃತ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ರವW)ೆ ಆ$ೋ• ರವರು ಪKೇ ಪKೇ ೕ >ಾF Cಾಚ( ೕF, ೕನು ಹಣ ೊಡKೇ ಇದJ$ೆ ನನ ಬ2 ಇರುವ ನ jೆ6 ಗಳನು :ಾಪ ೊಡುವo?ಲ5:ೆಂದು 1ೆದW; ಎOಾದರೂ /ೋI cಾL ಎಂದು ಮೃತ 3ಾನು ಆ$ೋ• ಕ`ೆLಂದ ಪ`ೆದುೊಂಡ ಹಣವನು :ಾಪ ೕFದುJ, ಆ$ೋ• ಕ`ೆLಂದ cಾN -02 ರವರು ಪ`ೆದುೊಂFರುವ ಹಣವನು ಮೃತನು ೕಡುವಂ3ೆ ಆ$ೋ• ಪKೇ ಪKೇ ಬಲವಂತ >ಾFದJWಂದ /ಾಗೂ ಹಣವನು ೕಡಲು ಆಗ?ದJ$ೆ ಎOಾದರೂ /ೋI cಾಯುವಂ3ೆ ದುೇರೆ ೕFದJWಂದ ಮೃತ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ರವರು ?-ಾಂಕ:- 06/09/2024 ರಂದು 1ೆಳIನ Mಾವ 1.30 ಗಂCೆಯ ಸಮಯದ5, ಗು ೕ - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 ಾಾ :ಾ •0ಯ, ಗು 3ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸ1ಾ /ೋಬ2, /ೇರೂರು Zಾರಂ ಸkೕಪ ಇರುವ ;ಐ\ ಾ4ೇಜು ಮುಂ]ಾಗyರುವ ಮೃತ ಬಸವ$ಾಜು ರವರು ನ`ೆಸುb+ರುವ ಗು ೇ6 /ೌ ನ ಮ2)ೆಯ.. 1ೇಕWಯ ಅಂಗFಯ ಮ2)ೆಯ ಕಣದ /ಾ ಂಗq )ೆ :ೇq ಂದ ಕುb+)ೆ -ೇಣು Iದುೊಂಡು ಆತPಹ3ೆ >ಾFೊಂಡು ಮೃತ ಪ\ರು3ಾ+$ೆಂದು ಈ ೇ;ನ ತ€ೆLಂದ ಆ$ೋ•ಯ yರುದ• ಆ$ೋಪವo ದೃಡ ಪಟ Xೕ$ೆ)ೆ Xೕಲಂಡ ಕಲಂ Wೕ3ಾ Kೋಷ$ೋಪಣ ಪತ0.” A perusal at the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet in tandem would unmistakably indicate that the petitioner had several times called upon the complainant's husband to return the money or go and die. This cannot become the ingredient of the offence under Section 108 of the BNS, for which the ingredients of abetment as obtaining under Section 45 of BNS is necessary to be present. 8. Jurisprudence is replete with the Apex Court delineating what would become the ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, which was Section 306 of the erstwhile regime – the IPC. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 8.1. The Apex Court in the case of YADWINDER SINGH ALIAS SUNNY v. STATE OF PUNJAB1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 15. By now the position of law insofar as abetment of suicide is concerned is well settled. Even if we accept the entire case put up by the prosecution as it is without adding anything or subtracting, we are of the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are borne out. 16. This Court in the case of “Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:— “13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:— “306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:— “107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or 12025 SCC OnLine SC 2332 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.— A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:— “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465, it was observed as under:— “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide. 18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC.” 8.2. The Apex Court in the case of DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI PATEL LOTWALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT2, while considering an identical issue of whether demanding money lent to the deceased can become abetment to suicide, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 13. What is evident from the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency is that the 7 deceased had borrowed money from multiple accused. Insofar as the present appellant is concerned, it appears the deceased initially borrowed Rs. 4 lacs and in lieu thereof, issued a cheque drawn on State Bank of India. Later, Rs. 6 lacs were also lent. The only basis on which the charge-sheet has been laid against the accused is the suicide note coupled with the call detail records which indicate that 40 phone calls were made by the appellant to the deceased in last six months. As far as the suicide note is concerned, we find that it lacks material particulars regarding the nature of those threats and the time and place when those threats were extended. Moreover, the suicide note indicts as many as 9 accused without specifying the role of any one of them. It is not the case of the prosecution that all accused belong to one family or were harassing 2 SLP (Crl.) No.4644/2025, disposed on 10.03.2026 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 the deceased as a group. Further, the deceased has painted all creditors with one brush. Therefore, a trial based on such a suicide note would be a futile exercise. Besides, if a creditor makes a phone call to the debtor for return of his money that being a lawful act, it cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute the creditor. Moreover, the deceased may have committed suicide on account of depression for not being able to clear of the debt. 14. In such circumstances, particularly when there is no material to indicate that the deceased was beaten or physically assaulted to return the dues, we are of the view that there is hardly any material on basis whereof it could be inferred that the appellant by demanding his dues abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. In our view, therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant would be a futile exercise and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary that the same be quashed.” 8.3. The Apex Court in the case of BALAJI JAISWAL v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH3, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. The charge as framed against the appellant is under Section 306 and in alternate under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. In this regard, we may refer to a recent decision in Prakash (supra) to which one of us (K.V. Viswanathan, J.) was a party. Therein, the appellants had sought discharge from the criminal proceedings filed under Section 306 of the Penal Code. Dealing with the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code, it was held as under: 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 602 - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 “13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. xxxxxxxxxxxx - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat10, this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows: “18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well- established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.” 19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh11, laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:— “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. Xxxxxxxxxxx 26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.” 11. From the aforesaid decision, it becomes clear that for sustaining a charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code, it has to be shown that the accused persons had contributed to the suicide by the deceased through some direct or indirect act. Section 107 of the Penal Code has thereafter been referred to hold that there ought to be some instigation or incitement that would reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide, thus, leading the victim to such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. There ought to be some material to indicate a positive act of instigation, which is a crucial component of abetment. Instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person has been held to be the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. The act of instigation also has to be in close proximity to the act of suicide so as to form the nexus or a chain to indicate that the act of suicide was the direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person. Incidentally, the decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent has been considered and relied upon in Prakash (supra). 12. The material forming part of the charge sheet would, therefore, have to be examined keeping in mind the above perspective. Existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence would be necessary. On going through the various statements recorded by the prosecution, the same indicate that deceased Komal was addicted to liquor and that the appellant and Komal used to have liquor together. The son of the deceased, Aakash, had stated that whenever his father used to drink from his money, Revati Bai used to scold him. However, when the appellant used to bring liquor for him, she did not object. In his subsequent statement recorded after about five months from the incident, he suspected that there were illicit relations between his mother and the appellant. Statements of other family members and neighbours indicate the addiction of Komal to liquor. - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 Except such statements and general allegations of illicit relationship between Revati Bai and the appellant, there is no material whatsoever to indicate any instigation or incitement at the instance of the appellant that could lead to Komal committing suicide. On 05.05.2024, the appellant had been to the house of Komal and they had liquor together between 09 : 00 P.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. There is no material whatsoever indicating any act of instigation or incitement or abetment by the appellant. The suicide was stated to have been committed in the morning of 07.05.2024. No material whatsoever as regards the proximity between the meeting of the appellant and the deceased, and his committing suicide is available on record. It, thus, will have to be held that the requirements of Section 107 of the Penal Code are not satisfied in the present case. 13. Even if we proceed on the premise that there were illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by Komal is absent. As held, to bring home a charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code, the act of abetment would require some positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. There is no allegation that the appellant had instigated Komal to commit suicide or that he had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. Further, there is no material on record to infer that Komal was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the absence of such mens rea on the part of the accused being apparent from the face of record, the charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code cannot be sustained. 14. We, therefore, find that even after accepting the entire material on record at its face value, the ingredients of Section 306 of the Penal Code are not satisfied. Continuation of such criminal proceedings would, therefore, be a futile exercise resulting in the absence of process of law. We may reiterate what this Court said in paragraph 9 in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat12 are as follows:— - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 “In the prosecution under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial.” The proceedings, therefore, deserve to be quashed. The High Court failed to examine the material on record in the light of the law laid down in this regard. It, therefore, erred in not quashing the proceedings. The ratio of the decision in Dammu Sreenu (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent is clearly distinguishable as it arises from a challenge to the conviction of the appellant therein based on the evidence on record.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) In the light of the issue standing answered and none of the alleged acts of the petitioner meeting the threshold ingredient of abetement, goading or proximity, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in the miscarriage of justice. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010349722026 NC: 2026:KHC:47605 CRL.P No. 7437 of 2026 ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.98/2025 pending on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru stand quashed qua the petitioner. I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68